Author
Topic: Question on the EO view of the Procession of the Holy Spirit (Read 3246 times)

The problem is that we mean different things when we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds. The latin meaning has its place in traditional latin theology long before there was schism, unfortunately the context in which it can be properly applied in latin is not the context of the intent creed. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that if the word was the same, then the definition should be the same and if the phrase is ok in theological writings, then it should be ok in the creed. This changed the intent of the creed in the west, and once it had been formally adopted, the east interpreted the latin use of "and the son" within the context of the original intent of the creed. When the east said "you can't do that", the west defended the presence of the clause in the creed.

My opinion would be that the creed should be recited and taught in a manner that conveys the original intent. This means removing the filioque, and if necessary inserting "immediately" (I suggest this word here because it is used within western tradition to describe the procession from the Father and not the Son) or some other word to designate the Holy Spirit's relationship of procession that properly comes from the Father.

The per filium in Eastern theology concerns the Spirit's eternal manifestation or shining forth from the Father through the Son, but not His reception of existence or essence, which is from the Father alone.

When - according to the Fathers of Blachernae - theologians say: "that the Spirit proceeds 'through the Son,' what is meant here is the eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son, [and] not the purely [personal] emanation into being of the Spirit, which has its existence from the Father. Otherwise, this would deprive the Father from being the only cause and the only source of divinity, and would expose the theologian [i.e., St. Gregory of Nazianzus] who says 'everything the Father is said to possess, the Son, likewise, possesses except causality' as a dishonest theologian" [Council of Blachernae (AD 1285)].

I recommend reading Aristeides Papadakis's book "Crisis in Byzantinium" for more information on this topic.

The per filium in Eastern theology concerns the Spirit's eternal manifestation or shining forth from the Father through the Son, but not His reception of existence or essence, which is from the Father alone.

When - according to the Fathers of Blachernae - theologians say: "that the Spirit proceeds 'through the Son,' what is meant here is the eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son, [and] not the purely [personal] emanation into being of the Spirit, which has its existence from the Father. Otherwise, this would deprive the Father from being the only cause and the only source of divinity, and would expose the theologian [i.e., St. Gregory of Nazianzus] who says 'everything the Father is said to possess, the Son, likewise, possesses except causality' as a dishonest theologian" [Council of Blachernae (AD 1285)].

I recommend reading Aristeides Papadakis's book "Crisis in Byzantinium" for more information on this topic.

The per filium in Eastern theology concerns the Spirit's eternal manifestation or shining forth from the Father through the Son, but not His reception of existence or essence, which is from the Father alone.

When - according to the Fathers of Blachernae - theologians say: "that the Spirit proceeds 'through the Son,' what is meant here is the eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son, [and] not the purely [personal] emanation into being of the Spirit, which has its existence from the Father. Otherwise, this would deprive the Father from being the only cause and the only source of divinity, and would expose the theologian [i.e., St. Gregory of Nazianzus] who says 'everything the Father is said to possess, the Son, likewise, possesses except causality' as a dishonest theologian" [Council of Blachernae (AD 1285)].

I recommend reading Aristeides Papadakis's book "Crisis in Byzantinium" for more information on this topic.

“The Father remains the sole cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis (as the one who spirates Him), but the Spirit, intimately aware of the Father’s begetting of the Son, comes forth from the begetter through the begotten as the Spirit manifesting their common nature.” (p. 31)